Comments

kristina12

formerlyphil, I find it interesting that you failed to mention loner's very next sentence: "The woman didn't conceive on her own therefore should not have the right to kill the unborn on her own." Hmmm, interesting. Neglected that part did ya? Sounds to me like he implied the mother was at the mercy of the father to let her decide what to do with her own body. Howcome the anti-abortion folks are okay with twisting facts and playing with people's words in order to defend each other? Weird.

Emelye

Assuming the father is around, let alone willing to participate in the decision to abort a pregnancy or not isn't the best assumption to make, methinks.

If the relationship between the pregnant girl and the father of the baby is good enough, he'll be involved no matter what. He can always say his piece and I'm sure many do but the ultimate decision has to be borne by the woman who has to carry the child to term, or not. It's her body, not his. Women are compelled to have the responsibilities of pregnancy, they absolutely should have the choice.

formerlyphil

girlyman you can google colin kapernick if you like. no, i don't meet your criteria because i don't know the kapernicks. sorry about that. but they're pro-life. & they adopted. maybe you've heard of colin kapernick?..

or maybe you've heard of tim tebow. not adopted, so a different example. nonetheless another figure scoffed at by the pro-choicers.

formerlyphil

"Abortion should not only be a women's issue. It should also be up to the father to help make that decision."

what's so hard to understand about that? she did not get pregnant all by her lonesome. the father doesn't have any say unless the mother decides to keep the baby upon which time the court almost automatically grants custody to the mother (if they're not together) & the father foots the majority of all bills.

fredoniarocks

Krystalgirl

lonerrider, your comments are the most backwards hogwash I've seen here. You smack of someone who lives alone, isolated from friends and family, completely distant from the world around you. So, according to your assertion, a male should be able to legally force a female to give birth? Legally force a female to undergo a 9 month pregnancy if he wants it to happen. There are so many cave-men around here, who really serve absolutely no other purpose than to hear themselves rant, pat each other on the back, and perpetuate dogma. Do you guys ever stop and think?

jamestownfan18

loner, your alter-ego, notmetoday is a 'lady' right? So thats why your opinion counts so much. You represent both sexes. As for your statement about the father's rights...sorry a man can't force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term that she is unwilling to carry. If thats the ignorant would you want to live in, I can suggest a few countries for you to move to. Thats part of life, loner. The embryo/zygote/fetus is in the woman's body, its part of her body, and she makes the choice. Ask 'notmetoday' what she thinks...

Emelye

Roe v Wade put an end to that, at least it was supposed to before the Supreme Court started allowing states to regulate abortion providers into nonexistence. In Mississippi, they are trying to close down the last abortion provider in the state. Do they really think that will end abortion in their state? Of course not! All it will do is drive poor women (the well to do can go to another state because they can afford it) into the underground where they will again have to risk injury, sterility or even death.

Emelye

If you'll pay attention, FedUpL8ly, I don't support most gun control laws because they do not work. Illegal drug laws don't work, the same way that Prohibition was such a dismal failure. If there is a demand for something, people will act to fulfill it at a profit, if they can possibly arrange it.

Women were getting abortions long before Roe v Wade was decided. The wealthier ones (usually white women, at the time) were able to go to clean, well run "clinics" in other countries to lose their "problem." Poorer women (many of whom were women of color, of course) had to make do with people who operated in cheap hotel rooms and back alleys, risking injury, sterility or even death. That was the reality!

GioAllie

Krystalgirl

Well, the difference, fedup, is that the women getting abortions aren't a dancer to people in society, whereas the people going underground to obtain guns are. Quite a big difference. By making certain types of guns illegal it allows the police to arrest them even if they are ever just caught with the gun. Thats a way to help prevent a shooting. Apples and Oranges. But the argument 'your just as bad as us so there' is always nice to see.

FedUpL8ly

Your argument,Emelye,seems to be the perfect argument against Obama/Dems campaign against banning guns and their associated restrictions. It shows that liberal intolerance is just as pervasive as conservative intolerance. It depends only on the issue at hand as to who is intolerant.

formerlyphil

Krystalgirl

Emelye, I agree, you'd think the anti-abortion folks would support contraception and prevention,yet they HATE Planned Parenthood, an organization that has 97% of its funding go towards education, prevention, contraception, cancer screening, counseling, and STD screening. They also argue that gun laws are stupid because 'criminals don't follow laws', yet they think abortion should be illegal, assuming that women who need abortions won't get one illegally. These aren't exactly logical folks we are dealing with here.

Emelye

I find it sad that the people who so vociferously rant against a woman's right to choose if she should give birth or not never consider that if abortion is made illegal again that it won't stop abortions. All it will do is push the practice back underground where proper facilities and safety regulations are ignored in order to make a quick buck and who cares if the lady survives to have another child!

It's obvious to me that anti-abortion activists are just another branch of self righteous would be do gooders who want to shove their philosophies down everyone else's throats (or elsewhere in the case of transvaginal ultrasounds) with no reagrd to any mitigating factors. That's the opposite of freedom and in line with totalitarianism.

If you don't like abortions, don't have one. Good advice! You can also adopt a child, support birth control and work toward sensible regulation. Advocating for the ban of legal abortion harms people.

jamestownfan18

jamestownfan18

Also, I think to most doggies, the fact that 'joing' was a type should have been fairly obvious. Replace the g with a t little doggie, and read it in context and i'm sure you're Alpo deprived brain will clear itself out.

jamestownfan18

Seadog, I see you haven't had your dose of Alpo yet. You are caught up in a tornado of rants and confusion. Do you need doggie meals on wheels?

I'm sorry you don't understand simple things. I guess I will try to spell them out more elementary in the future. I think i've explained what I mean by specialty taxes. If you are still confused even after simple explanations, there's not much I can do for you.

Is this still about you being in a rage about the failure of your alter-ego to pay his taxes? If so, its water under the brigde, don't fret over it.